Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
This does look another AIM share where promises outstripped talent. Looking at the CVs of the staff it is evident that they lack experience and skills. Senior management are keeping this going for their inflated salaries.
Ideally what data they hold and what they've achieved will be released but I suspect the data is too disorganised to be useful and that which isn't is not showing any meaningful results.
AI, big data, based in Oxford, no clear business plan, what else do you need?
It would be difficult to design such a study and you would have to have robust preliminary data to support such a suggestion. You'd be looking at a phase 1 trial, not phase 3.
You can't use in the failed Dex group as what would be the definition of failing and again stopping Dex would be considered unethical especially as covid can take unusual disease courses which would be hard to pick when it would be deemed to be failing. Then you've got the tociluzumab etc issue. These are also going to be increasingly small subsets of patients which are hard to recruit enough to get statistical power and have less commercial scope
All trials should be designed against best standard of care. In this case that is steroids. If you compare to no steroids or placebo you are condemning a whole treatment arm to no treatment which is unethical. All because you think interferon works better than steroids and because steroids inhibit interferon. That is not going to cut it with a regulatory agency
You have to have all patients on steroids and the interferon treatment arm also take steroids
There is no easy way round the steroid issue as it would be deemed unethical to not compare to best standard of care. I don't think they would get approval for interferon alone. There would have to be very robust data that steroids stop interferon and that interferon is better than steroids, which cant be done without the trial which would have to be to best existing tx
When the phase 2 results came I posted that interferon would have to be compared to the standard of care, which was steroids and even perhaps tociluzumab or remdesvir which is still used for some reason. Was destroyed by a number of posters for stating this, I remember some poster called Seadoc amongst others. Given the marginal statistical significance of the phase 2 it was also going to be tough getting phase 3 to significance in the above setting. I think the board knew this all along.
It is entirely correct to compare to steroids as a minimum and any medic or scientist with knowledge of current covid treatments would know it would be unlikely the phase 3 would succeed.
Sorry for the people who have lost money. I do think it is another case of the people in the know played with the design for their benefit. Phase 2 was poorly designed but has made many associated with the company very rich. Much harder to fudge the phase 3.
Almost got in here a year or so ago, what put me off was Drayson's inflated pay. His ability warrants less than a tenth of that.
I guess most of the data is coming from the NHS. That clinical data will have ultimately had to be taken by nurses and doctors. The quality of notes and reliability of what is recorded will be questionable. If we had more transparency on the actual data they get and the quality of it then it would be easier to appraise. There is a real risk that everything they get from the NHS is next to useless. Data from scans, biochem and histopath is about the only things that are probably objectively useful.
They already have a lot of data sets, if they are struggling to get meaningful results I'm thinking the processing of it is either very slow and expensive or any significance is very subtle and open to confounders
I really hope spirometry isn't one of the comparisons. Next it'll be a stethoscope vs CT
There really is no substitute for imaging, especially if it is radiation free.
I think the factor slowing growth will be training to use and interpret compounded by radiographers and radiologists being in short supply.
What is wrong Donmac? You normally ramp and you are being very conservative with your $35.
More excellent news and this looks very undervalued.
Better than existing technology, although there is still a long way to improve and I think they will with new biomarkers and genetic testing.
Doctors, which are the people that will decide to use it or not, like it.
It saves money long term
Contracts coming in
Working with leading institutions and companies
As has been mentioned earlier it is the cost of the testing process which is high, the reagents in the test are insignificant.
As cases drop most LFTs become false positives and are are not a viable option. If the government and public want cheap the only option that has any scientific validity is pooled PCR. £100 to test all members of a family for a flight is not unreasonable.
I think we need visibility if they are selling all of their production. Long term, the big gains are going to be product diversification and recurring private sector revenue.
Novacyt's own fault, the contract clearly states if you're not the local pub landlord of a senior member of the department of health your contract will not be honoured or renewed.
Wilson - thank you for that and I stick by my high end 'blue sky' valuation.
The diagnostic market is changing, a number on here have talked about the potential opportunities. There are more than that have been posted here but a number are fledgling projects that I can't/shouldn't discuss in the public domain yet. Most will have nothing to do with Novacyt.
The risks as ever are still there. Specifically, that the government might choose a competitor. I can't evaluate that accurately and accept that risk. All I can assess is Novacyt's technology and approach and that combined with the potential market is what justifies my investment.
I think they are focused on getting the job done and don't have the time and inclination for hand holding. Like I alluded to earlier, if all unknowns were removed there would be no market or potential for gain. I see this as an opportunity to invest as the unknowns are minimal once appropriate research has been done.
I look for a company that has a good product, innovates and has honest management that is well connected. Novacyt appears to have that. There are only a few other AIM biotechs that also possess these attributes. Most don't and I avoid.
If an investor is basing their decisions on detailed revenue figures and exact contracts as you say the market wants, then you are going to get very low returns as there is no skill or insight involved as everything is priced in. If that's what you want or need then you should be in the FTSE investing.
The other extreme is a company with no revenue and no hope of generating significant revenue. This is high risk and most likely to yield nothing but potential gains high if in on the stock early.
Novacyt has proven in can generate revenue and build relationships and innovate. It takes time to understand the science, potential and market but you can see that they will do well and don't need to be drip fed revenue figures. This requires some insight, research and knowledge but will yield a good return as you are ahead of the market.
I hope GM reads this board. I'm glad he doesn't publish every single revenue update of contract win because he rewards those who work at research and those that trust him and the company. If I was him I wouldn't RNS everything as the only people that need that are those that don't trust him and the company and those that haven't done their research.
Good link ggg. It's amazing how being the media and most of experts are, how they present so called insights as revelations This was discussed on here a while ago and again emphasises the strength of this board.
Sure we'll get the normal posters stating the market is never wrong etc., because they are all experts you know.
Interesting article. The use of the term 'minimal' by the government and no mention of positive predictive value by them demonstrates how lacking in evidence or scientific guidance their policies are.
Parents will increasingly refuse to use them and the policy will fall apart.
Antibody tests, PCR for variants and vaccination status is will be done eventually but a lot of time and money will be wasted before we get there
I think today just shows how lacking in knowledge most analysts, MMs and some investors are. Novacyt themselves know they have a good test that targets conserved regions, we know this, yet people still panic about our test.
This board has a wealth of information and I think we are ahead of the market. I think those who say the market is never wrong have never met analysts and the people that work for investment firms - they are not a smart bunch.